United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD 

UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCKGESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER 

WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA 

MAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2017-2508

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge 

Indira Talwani.

______________________ 

Decided: February 6, 2019

______________________ 

ADAM GAHTAN, Fenwick & West LLP, New York, NY, 

argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by ERIC

M. MAJCHRZAK, VANESSA PARK-THOMPSON; ANDREW 

JOSEPH KABAT, EMMETT J. MCMAHON, Robins Kaplan LLP, 

Minneapolis, MN; DIMITRIOS T. DRIVAS, White & Case LLP, 

New York, NY. 

 JONATHAN ELLIOT SINGER, Fish & Richardson, PC, San 
2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

Diego, CA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by JOHN CAMERON ADKISSON, ELIZABETH M.

FLANAGAN, PHILLIP GOTER, DEANNA JEAN REICHEL, Minneapolis, MN. 

 AARON BARKOFF, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., 

Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae The Chartered Institute of 

Patent Attorneys. 

 KEVIN EDWARD NOONAN, McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert 

& Berghoff, LLP, Chicago, IL, for amicus curiae Five Life 

Sciences Patent Practitioners. Also represented by JOHN 

DOMINIC CRAVERO, AARON VINCENT GIN, MICHAEL S.

GREENFIELD, ANDREA KAY ORTH. 

 MELISSA A. BRAND, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Biotechnology 

Innovation Organization. Also represented by HANSJORG 

SAUER; BRIAN PAUL BARRETT, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN. 

 MATTHEW JAMES DOWD, Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, DC, for amici curiae Dan L. Burk, Richard A. Epstein, Christopher Michael Holman, Gus Hurwitz, Adam 

Mossoff, Kristen J. Osenga, Michael Risch, Mark F. 

Schultz, Ted M. Sichelman, Brenda M. Simon. 

 KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, for amicus curiae ARUP Laboratories, Inc. Also represented by BRIAN C. CANNON, 

Redwood Shores, CA. 

 ______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE. 

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 3

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Athena Diagnostics, Inc., Oxford University Innovation Ltd., and the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Forderung 

der Wissenschaften E.V. (collectively, “Athena”) appeal 

from the order of the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts holding that claims 6–9 of U.S. 

Patent 7,267,820 (the “’820 patent”) are invalid under 

35 U.S.C. § 101 and dismissing Athena’s complaint under 

Rule 12(b)(6). Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 275 F. Supp. 3d 306 (D. Mass. 2017) (“Decision”). Because the district court correctly concluded that 

the claims at issue are directed to a natural law and lack 

an inventive concept, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Athena Diagnostics is the exclusive licensee of the ’820 

patent, covering methods for diagnosing neurological disorders by detecting antibodies to a protein called musclespecific tyrosine kinase (“MuSK”). ’820 patent Abstract. 

Athena also markets a test called FMUSK that functions 

by evaluating those antibodies. After Mayo Collaborative 

Services, LLC (“Mayo”) developed two competing tests that 

allegedly practice each step of one or more claims of the 

’820 patent, Athena accused Mayo of infringing its patent. 

Mayo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that 

the asserted claims of the ’820 patent were invalid under 

35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Mayo’s motion, 

concluding that the claims were invalid under § 101 for 

claiming ineligible subject matter. This appeal solely concerns whether claims 6–9 are patent eligible under § 101. 

A.

Myasthenia gravis (“MG”) is a neurological disorder

where patients experience muscle weakness and symptoms 

including drooping eyelids, double vision, and slurred 

speech. ’820 patent col. 1 ll. 13–23. It was previously discovered that MG is an autoimmune disease caused by a 
4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

patient generating antibodies against her own acetylcholine receptors. Id. col. 1 ll. 24–26. Antibodies which recognize a person’s own proteins as foreign antigens are known 

as autoantibodies. Id. col. 1 ll. 42–45. 

About 80% of patients with MG produce acetylcholine 

receptor autoantibodies. Id. col. 1 ll. 34–36. The other 20% 

do not, but they do experience the same MG symptoms. Id. 

col. 1 ll. 36–38. The named inventors of the ’820 patent 

discovered that many of the 20% of MG patients without 

acetylcholine receptor autoantibodies instead generate autoantibodies to a membrane protein called MuSK. Id. col. 

1 ll. 54–61. Prior to their discovery, no disease had been 

associated with MuSK. Id. col. 2 ll. 35–37. 

Having discovered the association between MuSK autoantibodies and MG, the inventors of the ’820 patent disclosed and claimed methods of diagnosing neurological 

disorders such as MG by detecting autoantibodies that 

bind to a MuSK epitope.1 Id. col. 2 ll. 61–65. Claim 1, not 

at issue in this appeal, is the only independent claim and 

reads as follows: 

1. A method for diagnosing neurotransmission or 

developmental disorders related to [MuSK] in a 

mammal comprising the step of detecting in a bodily fluid of said mammal autoantibodies to an 

epitope of [MuSK]. 

Id. col. 12 ll. 31–35. Claim 7 is at issue and depends from 

claim 1. It recites:

 

1 An epitope, also known as an antigenic determinant, is a segment of a protein recognized by an antibody. 

See Bruce Alberts, Molecular Biology of the Cell 449–50 

(6th ed. 2015). The specification of the ’820 patent disclosed that autoantibodies in MG patients recognize a 

MuSK epitope located on the protein’s extracellular aminoterminal domain. ’820 patent col. 1 ll. 54–57. 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 5

7. A method according to claim 1, comprising 

contacting MuSK or an epitope or antigenic determinant thereof having a suitable label thereon, 

with said bodily fluid, 

immunoprecipitating any antibody/MuSK complex 

or antibody/MuSK epitope or antigenic determinant complex from said bodily fluid and 

monitoring for said label on any of said antibody/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope or 

antigen determinant complex, 

wherein the presence of said label is indicative of 

said mammal is suffering from said neurotransmission or developmental disorder related to [MuSK]. 

Id. col. 12 l. 62–col. 13 l. 5 (spacing added). Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites that the label is a radioactive label. Id. col. 13 ll. 6–7. Claim 9 depends from claim 

8 and further recites that the radioactive label is 125I, a 

radioactive isotope of iodine. Id. col. 13 ll. 8–9. We focus 

on claim 9, the most specific one at issue, which requires: 

(1) contacting MuSK or an epitope thereof having a 125I 

label, with bodily fluid; (2) immunoprecipitating any antibody/MuSK complex; and (3) monitoring for the label on 

the complex, wherein the presence of the label indicates the 

presence of a MuSK-related disorder. 

The specification of the ’820 patent further explains 

what the steps of iodination and immunoprecipitation entail. First, MuSK is iodinated using radioactive 125I. Id. 

col. 10 ll. 50–52. Then iodinated MuSK is separated from 

any free 125I by gel filtration. Id. col. 10 ll. 55–56. Next, 

the 125I-labeled MuSK is added to a small volume of the 

patient’s bodily fluid and left overnight. Id. col. 10 ll. 56–

58. If MuSK autoantibodies are present in the patient’s 

bodily fluid, they will bind to the 125I-labeled MuSK. Any 

125I-labeled MuSK in the sample is then immunoprecipitated by adding a secondary antibody that binds to any 
6 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

MuSK autoantibodies present. Id. col. 10 ll. 58–60. The 

resulting precipitate is finally centrifuged, washed, and 

counted for radioactivity, which may be indicative of MG. 

Id. col. 10 ll. 60–61. 

It is undisputed that iodination and immunoprecipitation were known techniques at the time of the invention. 

The ’820 patent specification states that “[t]he actual steps 

of detecting autoantibodies in a sample of bodily fluids may 

be performed in accordance with immunological assay 

techniques known per se in the art,” such as radioimmunoassays. Id. col. 3 ll. 33–37. With respect to the relevant 

individual steps in the radioimmunoassay, the specification also discloses that “[i]odination and immunoprecipitation are standard techniques in the art.” Id. col. 4 ll. 10–

11. 

Claim 6 is additionally at issue in this appeal and depends from claim 3. While claim 6 also involves detecting 

MuSK autoantibodies by contacting a patient’s bodily fluid 

with MuSK or an epitope thereof, the labelling occurs 

somewhat differently than in claims 7–9. Instead of labeling MuSK with a radioisotope, claim 3 recites that the secondary antibody is “tagged or labeled with a reporter 

molecule.” Id. col. 12 ll. 47–49. Claim 6 additionally requires that “the intensity of the signal from the [secondary] 

antibody is indicative of the relative amount of the antiMuSK autoantibody in the bodily fluid when compared to 

a positive and negative control reading.” Id. col. 12 ll. 57–

61. This claimed technique exemplifies the ELISA 

method,2 which, like radioimmunoassays, the ’820 patent 

specification lists as an example of “immunological assay 

techniques known per se in the art.” Id. col. 3 ll. 33–36.

 

2 ELISA stands for enzyme-linked immunosorbent 

assay. The technical details of this assay are not relevant 

to this appeal. 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 7

B.

The district court concentrated its analysis on claims 

7–9. Athena did not present any arguments specific to 

claim 6. Applying the test for subject matter eligibility established by the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) 

and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 

(2014), the court first concluded that the claims were directed to a law of nature, Decision, 275 F. Supp. 3d at 312. 

According to the court, the claims focused on the interaction of 125I-labeled MuSK with MuSK autoantibodies in 

bodily fluid, an interaction which occurs naturally. Id. at 

310. The district court also determined that the claims 

lacked an inventive concept, as the recited steps involved 

only standard techniques in the art. Id. at 312–13. 

The district court thus dismissed Athena’s complaint 

for failure to state a claim. Athena appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

II. DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s dismissal for failure to 

state a claim under regional circuit law. BASCOM Glob. 

Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 

1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The First Circuit reviews such dismissals de novo, accepts all well-pleaded facts alleged in 

the complaint to be true, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig., 814 F.3d 538, 549 (1st Cir. 2016). Patent 

eligibility under § 101 is a question of law based on underlying facts, see Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018); 

Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 

2018), that may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when 

the undisputed facts require a holding of ineligibility, SAP 

Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 

2018). 
8 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

Section 101 provides that “[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or 

composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement 

thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. 

Given the expansive terms of § 101, “Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope”; 

some of the legislative history likewise indicated that “Congress intended statutory subject matter to ‘include anything under the sun that is made by man.’” Diamond v. 

Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308–09 (1980).

Under the law as set forth by the Supreme Court, 

§ 101, while broad, “contains an important implicit exception. ‘[L]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract 

ideas’ are not patentable.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70 (alteration 

in original) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 

(1981)). These exceptions exist because monopolizing the 

basic tools of scientific work “might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Id. at 71. However, the Supreme Court has advised that these exceptions 

must be applied cautiously, as “too broad an interpretation 

of this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law.” 

Id. 

Laws of nature are not patentable, but applications of 

such laws may be patentable. A claim to otherwise statutory subject matter does not become ineligible by its use of

a law of nature. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; Parker v. Flook, 

437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978). But, on the other hand, adding 

“conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” 

to a law of nature does not make a claim to the law of nature patentable. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82. 

To distinguish claims to patent-eligible applications of 

laws of nature from claims that impermissibly tie up such 

laws, we apply the two-part test set forth by the Supreme 

Court. First, we examine whether the claims are “directed 

to” a law of nature. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If they are, then 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 9

we proceed to the second inquiry, where we ask whether 

the limitations of the claim apart from the law of nature, 

considered individually and as an ordered combination, 

“‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible 

application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78). To so 

transform the claim, the additional limitations must “ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly 

more than a patent upon the natural law itself.” Mayo, 566 

U.S. at 73. 

We first address claims 7–9 and then turn to claim 6. 

A. 

Athena argues that claims 7–9 are not directed to a 

natural law at step one because they recite innovative, specific, and concrete steps that do not preempt a natural law. 

Rather, Athena contends that the claims are directed to a 

new laboratory technique that makes use of man-made 

molecules. 

Mayo responds that the claims are directed to a natural 

law: the correlation between naturally-occurring MuSK 

autoantibodies and MuSK-related neurological diseases 

like MG. According to Mayo, the remaining steps apart 

from the natural law are concededly standard immunoassay techniques that still leave the claim directed to a natural law. Indeed, Mayo argues that the specificity and 

concreteness of the claimed steps are irrelevant to whether 

a claim is directed to a natural law. And, as in Mayo, Mayo 

contends that it makes no difference to eligibility that the 

claimed diagnostic method uses man-made materials. 

We ultimately agree with Mayo that, under Mayo, the 

claims are directed to a natural law. As an initial matter, 

we must identify what the relevant natural law is. Here, 

it is the correlation between the presence of naturally-occurring MuSK autoantibodies in bodily fluid and MuSK-
10 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

related neurological diseases like MG.3 This correlation 

exists in nature apart from any human action. There can 

thus be no dispute that it is an ineligible natural law. 

However, as Athena correctly observes, not every claim 

that involves a natural law is directed to a natural law. 

“[A]ll inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest 

upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. The Supreme Court’s 

two-step test thus “plainly contemplates that the first step 

of the inquiry is a meaningful one, i.e., that a substantial 

class of claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 

(Fed. Cir. 2016). 

The step one “directed to” inquiry focuses on the claim 

as a whole. E.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 

F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To determine whether a 

claim is directed to an ineligible concept, we have frequently considered whether the claimed advance improves 

upon a technological process or merely an ineligible concept, based on both the written description and the claims. 

See Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics 

LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Rapid Litig. 

Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047–49 

(Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 

788 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also McRO, Inc. v. 

 

3 We note that the district court held that the “focus 

of the claims” was the binding of MuSK to MuSK antibodies in bodily fluid. Decision, 275 F. Supp. 3d at 310. Our 

cases have not described a claim to the binding of two molecules during a sequence of chemical manipulations (here, 

after MuSK labeling and before immunoprecipitation) as a 

claim to a natural law, even if such binding occurs according to natural laws. We need not resolve that issue here, 

as we agree with Mayo’s identification of the natural law. 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 11

Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 

(Fed. Cir. 2016); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. 

For example, in CellzDirect we considered claims that

covered a method for producing a preparation of a type of 

liver cell (called hepatocytes) that involved multiple freezethaw cycles. 827 F.3d at 1046, 1048. Although the inventors discovered the cells’ ability to survive multiple freezethaw cycles, a discovery that the district court understood 

to be a natural law, we concluded that the claims were not 

directed to that natural law. Id. at 1048–50. This was because the claims as a whole recited “a new and improved 

way of preserving hepatocyte cells for later use,” “not 

simply an observation or detection of the ability of hepatocytes to survive multiple freeze-thaw cycles.” Id. at 1048. 

The claimed advance harnessed a natural law to produce a 

technological improvement that was patent eligible. See 

id. at 1048–49; see also, e.g., Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–39 

(holding improvement in computer-related technology not 

directed to abstract idea). 

In contrast, in Cleveland Clinic we reiterated that 

claims that merely recite observing naturally occurring biological correlations “with no meaningful non-routine steps 

in between” are directed to a natural law. 859 F.3d at 1361; 

see Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1376. There, the specification indicated that the claimed inventors discovered a natural correlation between a molecule called MPO and 

cardiovascular disease. Cleveland Clinic, 859 F.3d at 

1360–61. The claims at issue recited detecting MPO or 

other MPO-related products in a patient sample and then

predicting a patient’s risk of having or developing cardiovascular disease. Id. at 1361. As the claims only covered 

the correlation between MPO and cardiovascular disease, 

an ineligible discovery, together with “well-known techniques to execute the claimed method,” we held that the 

claims were directed to a natural law. Id. 
12 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

The claims at issue here involve both the discovery of a 

natural law and certain concrete steps to observe its operation. Claim 9, the most specific claim at issue, recites the 

following method to detect MuSK autoantibodies: (1) mixing MuSK or an epitope thereof having a 125I label with 

bodily fluid; (2) immunoprecipitating any resulting antibody/MuSK complex; and (3) monitoring for the label on 

the complex. ’820 patent col. 12 l. 62–col. 13 l. 9. The claim

then concludes in the wherein clause with a statement of 

the natural law, i.e., the discovery that MuSK autoantibodies naturally present in a patient sample, detected with the 

125I label bound to the MuSK/antibody complex, indicate

that the patient is suffering from a MuSK-related neurological disorder. Id. col. 13 ll. 2–5. 

As in Cleveland Clinic and Ariosa, we conclude that 

claims 7–9 are directed to a natural law because the 

claimed advance was only in the discovery of a natural law, 

and that the additional recited steps only apply conventional techniques to detect that natural law. The specification of the ’820 patent highlights the discovery of the 

natural law, explaining that “[t]he present inventors surprisingly found that many of the 20% of MG patients [who] 

do not exhibit any autoantibodies to [the acetylcholine receptor], instead have . . . antibodies directed against the extracellular [amino]-terminal domains of MuSK.” Id. col. 1 

ll. 54–57. Further, the specification describes the claimed 

concrete steps for observing the natural law as conventional. It teaches that “[t]he actual steps of detecting autoantibodies in a sample of bodily fluids may be performed in 

accordance with immunological assay techniques known 

per se in the art,” including radioimmunoassays and 

ELISA. Id. col. 3 ll. 33–37. Likewise, the specification 

identifies “[i]odination and immunoprecipitation” as 

“standard techniques in the art.” Id. col. 4 ll. 10–12. The

’820 patent thus describes the claimed invention principally as a discovery of a natural law, not as an improvement in the underlying immunoassay technology. 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 13

Consistent with the specification, the claims are directed 

to that law. 

Athena argues that the claims at issue, like the claims 

in CellzDirect, are directed to an innovative laboratory 

technique, not a law of nature. However, Athena does not 

point to any innovation other than its discovery of the natural law. CellzDirect did not suggest that appending 

standard techniques to detect a natural law rendered

claims not directed to a natural law; rather, we expressly 

distinguished the eligible claims in that case from ineligible claims that “amounted to nothing more than observing 

or identifying the ineligible concept itself.” 827 F.3d at 

1048. In that case, we concluded that the “end result” of 

the claims at issue was “not simply an observation or detection” of a natural law. Id. We cannot so conclude here, 

since the claims before us only involve detecting a natural 

law “with no meaningful non-routine steps.” Cleveland 

Clinic, 859 F.3d at 1361. 

Athena also points to the specificity of the claimed concrete steps, contending that they preempt no natural law

and therefore the claims cannot be directed to a natural 

law. Although we agree that claim 9 leaves open to the 

public other ways of interrogating the correlation between 

MuSK autoantibodies and MuSK-related disorders without practicing the claim’s concrete steps, that does not disturb our conclusion at step one. Preemption is sufficient to 

render a claim ineligible under § 101, but it is not necessary. Flook, 409 U.S. at 71–72 (holding claim involving 

mathematical formula invalid under § 101 that did not 

preempt a mathematical formula); Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 

1379; In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer 

Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 764 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

The claims here are directed to a natural law because they 

recite only the natural law together with standard techniques for observing it. That the routine steps are set forth

with some specificity is not enough to change that conclusion. 
14 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

Finally, Athena argues that the claims at issue differ 

from prior diagnostic claims we have held ineligible under 

§ 101 because they require labeling MuSK with a manmade substance. We disagree. As Mayo argues, the use of 

a man-made molecule is not decisive if it amounts to only

a routine step in a conventional method for observing a natural law. For example, Mayo involved claims requiring administering a man-made molecule (a drug “providing” 6-

thioguanine) to a patient. 566 U.S. at 74–75. Some of the 

claims in Ariosa likewise required amplification through 

the polymerase chain reaction, which makes use of manmade reagents, see U.S. Patent 6,258,540 col. 5 ll. 6–26, or 

using a specific probe that binds to DNA, 788 F.3d at 1374. 

And the claims in BRCA1 also involved hybridizing a synthetic DNA probe to a DNA strand. BRCA1, 774 F.3d at

763–64. Nonetheless, in each of these cases either the Supreme Court or this court held the claims directed to a natural law and invalid under § 101. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 92; 

Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1380; BRCA1, 774 F.3d at 765. We thus 

reaffirm that use of a man-made molecule in a method 

claim employing standard techniques to detect or observe 

a natural law may still leave the claim directed to a natural 

law. 

We consider it important at this point to note the difference between the claims before us here, which recite a 

natural law and conventional means for detecting it, and 

applications of natural laws, which are patent-eligible. See

Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int’l Ltd., 887 

F.3d 1117, 1133–36 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that method 

of treatment by administering drug at certain dosage 

ranges based on a patient’s genotype was not directed to a 

natural law). Claiming a natural cause of an ailment and 

well-known means of observing it is not eligible for patent 

because such a claim in effect only encompasses the natural law itself. But claiming a new treatment for an ailment, 

albeit using a natural law, is not claiming the natural law. 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 15

As we conclude that claims 7–9 are directed to a natural law, we turn to the second step of the Mayo/Alice test.4

B.

At step two, “we consider the elements of each claim 

both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 

 

4 The dissent states much that one can agree with 

from the standpoint of policy, and history, including that 

“the public interest is poorly served by adding disincentive 

to the development of new diagnostic methods.” Dissent at 

12. We would add further that, in our view, providing patent protection to novel and non-obvious diagnostic methods would promote the progress of science and useful arts. 

But, whether or not we as individual judges might agree or 

not that these claims only recite a natural law, cf. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 

(Lourie, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc) 

(discussing traditional laws of nature such as “Ohm’s Law, 

Boyle’s Law, [and] the equivalence of matter and energy”), 

the Supreme Court has effectively told us in Mayo that correlations between the presence of a biological material and 

a disease are laws of nature, see 566 U.S. at 77, and 

“[p]urely ‘conventional or obvious’ ‘[pre]-solution activity’ is 

normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law 

of nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law,” 

id. at 79 (second alteration in original) (quoting Flook, 437 

U.S. at 590). We have since confirmed that applying somewhat specific yet conventional techniques (such as the polymerase chain reaction) to detect a newly discovered 

natural law does not confer eligibility under § 101. Ariosa, 

788 F.3d at 1377; see also Cleveland Clinic, 859 F.3d at 

1356, 1362 (addressing other conventional techniques such 

as flow cytometry). Our precedent leaves no room for a different outcome here.
16 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). “Purely 

‘conventional or obvious’ ‘[pre]-solution activity’ is normally not sufficient to transform an unpatentable law of 

nature into a patent-eligible application of such a law.” 

Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79 (second alteration in original) (quoting Flook, 437 U.S. at 590). The transformative “inventive 

concept” supplied by the claim elements not drawn to ineligible subject matter must be “sufficient to ensure that the 

patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 

217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73).

1. 

Athena argues that the claims provide an inventive 

concept: an innovative sequence of steps involving manmade molecules. Prior to its discovery, Athena contends 

that there was no disclosed method to detect MuSK autoantibodies. In addition, Athena argues that the existence 

of factual disputes precluded dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). 

Mayo responds that the claims lack an inventive concept because the specification describes the steps for detecting MuSK autoantibodies as standard techniques in 

the art. Furthermore, Mayo argues that no factual issues 

precluded the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). 

We agree with Mayo that the steps of the claims not 

drawn to ineligible subject matter, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, only require standard 

techniques to be applied in a standard way. As previously 

discussed, the specification of the ’820 patent plainly states 

that “[t]he actual steps of detecting autoantibodies in a 

sample of bodily fluids may be performed in accordance 

with immunological assay techniques known per se in the 

art,” such as radioimmunoassays. ’820 patent col. 3 ll. 33–

37. Iodination and immunoprecipitation are likewise described as standard techniques. Id. col. 4 ll. 9–12. Because 

the specification defines the individual immunoprecipitation and iodination steps and the overall 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 17

radioimmunoassay as conventional techniques, the claims 

fail to provide an inventive concept. Cleveland Clinic, 859 

F.3d at 1362; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1378. 

Our decisions in CellzDirect and BASCOM are consistent with the principle that applying standard techniques in a standard way to observe a natural law does not

provide an inventive concept. In CellzDirect, we considered 

a combination of claimed steps involving two freeze/thaw 

cycles. 827 F.3d at 1051. We held that this combination of 

steps was not conventional because the prior art methods 

only disclosed using one freeze/thaw cycle and, in fact,

taught away from using multiple freeze/thaw cycles. Id. 

Similarly, in BASCOM we held that the ordered combination of claim limitations was not routine and conventional 

because they placed a filtering tool at a specific location 

that improved on prior art technology. 827 F.3d at 1350. 

The inventive concept was “found in the non-conventional 

and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional 

pieces.” Id. In contrast, claims 7–9 of the ’820 patent employ a conventional technique for detecting autoantibodies, 

a radioimmunoassay, which the specification acknowledges was “known per se in the art.” ’820 patent col. 3 ll. 

33–37. The individual constituent steps of that technique, 

iodination and immunoprecipitation, are similarly described as standard. Id. col. 4 ll. 9–12. Thus, unlike the 

claimed limitations at issue in CellzDirect and BASCOM, 

the recited steps here were conventional both as an ordered 

combination and individually. 

Athena also argues that the claimed steps were unconventional because they had not been applied to detect 

MuSK autoantibodies prior to Athena’s discovery of the 

correlation between MuSK autoantibodies and MG. Even 

accepting that fact, we cannot hold that performing standard techniques in a standard way to observe a newly discovered natural law provides an inventive concept. This is 

because “[t]he inventive concept necessary at step two 

. . . cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature 
18 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

. . . itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 

1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73 (considering whether the “claimed processes (apart from the 

natural laws themselves)” were routine and conventional). 

Rather, to supply an inventive concept the sequence of 

claimed steps must do more than adapt a conventional assay to a newly discovered natural law; it must represent an 

inventive application beyond the discovery of the natural 

law itself. Because claims 7–9 fail to recite such an application, they do not provide an inventive concept. 

Similar to its step one argument, Athena further argues that the claims recite an inventive concept because 

they use a man-made molecule, i.e., labeled MuSK. Athena 

analogizes its methods involving labeled MuSK to the composition claims involving cDNA held eligible in Association 

for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 

576, 594–95 (2013). However, the method claims at issue 

here are unlike the claims held eligible in Myriad, which 

recited a new composition of matter that was not a natural 

product. Id. For the same reasons that we have concluded 

that attaching a label to MuSK did not make the claims 

directed to an eligible concept at step one, we conclude that 

appending labeling techniques to a natural law does not 

provide an inventive concept where, as here, the specification describes 125I labeling as a standard practice in a 

well-known assay. 

2. 

Athena also argues that the district court needed to 

conduct fact-finding before resolving the § 101 issue. But, 

unlike in Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128, Athena directs us to no

factual allegations in its complaint—amended three 

times—that the radioimmunoassay technique recited in 

claims 7–9 is anything other than standard and “known per 

se in the art.” ’820 patent, col. 3 ll. 33–37. Instead, Athena 

relies on an expert declaration submitted with its opposition to Mayo’s motion to dismiss, asserting that iodination 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 19

and immunoprecipitation were not routine as applied to 

the claimed invention. In dismissing Athena’s complaint 

under Rule 12(b)(6), the district court did not consider the 

declaration. Athena argues that was error. We disagree. 

In the First Circuit, under Rule 12(b)(6) a district court 

may generally “consider only facts and documents that are 

part of or incorporated into the complaint; if matters outside the pleadings are considered, the motion must be decided under the more stringent standards applicable to a 

Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.” Trans-Spec Truck 

Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315, 321 (1st Cir. 

2008). Certain documents, like the ’820 patent here, are 

also considered to “merge[] into the pleadings” where the 

“complaint’s factual allegations are expressly linked to”

and dependent upon a document, the authenticity of which 

is undisputed. Id. (quoting Beddall v. State St. Bank & 

Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 16–17 (1st Cir. 1998)). 

District courts in the First Circuit have discretion 

whether to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for 

summary judgment. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d)). “[I]f 

the district court chooses . . . to ignore supplementary materials submitted with the motion papers and determine 

the motion under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, no conversion 

occurs and the supplementary materials do not become 

part of the record for purposes of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” 

Id. 

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in declining to consider Athena’s expert declaration and convert the motion into one for summary judgment. The declaration does not “merge into the pleadings,” 

as the complaint does not reference it or otherwise depend 

on it. Nor is the declaration an official public record, another type of document a court may consider with the 

pleadings. See Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3–4 (1st Cir. 

1993). 
20 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

Athena does not expressly argue that the district court 

abused its discretion, but does contend, primarily citing 

non-binding authority, that the plaintiff may freely allege 

facts without support in responding to a motion to dismiss 

as long as those facts are consistent with the complaint, see 

Early v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 959 F.2d 75, 79 (7th 

Cir. 1992), and that its expert declaration alleged such consistent facts that create a dispute of material fact. 

Even assuming this general principle applies in the 

First Circuit—an assumption that Athena meagerly supports—the district court did not need to consider the allegations in the expert declaration because they were not 

consistent with the complaint read in light of the ’820 patent. These technical allegations include: (1) that detecting MuSK autoantibodies required the “creative step” of 

breaking up MuSK into smaller fragments, J.A. 623, 625; 

(2) that identifying a specific site on MuSK to label would 

not have been routine because many factors contribute to 

whether a binding site for a label is adequate, J.A. 626–28;

and (3) that immunoprecipitation is generally uncertain 

and not routine, J.A. 630. None of these details are recited 

in the claims of the ’820 patent: no claim requires breaking 

MuSK into fragments as opposed to using the entire MuSK 

protein; no claim is limited to a particular MuSK binding 

site; and no claim recites any detail with respect to immunoprecipitation. Those omissions are consistent with 

the specification’s description of iodination, immunoprecipitation, and the overall radioimmunoassay as standard 

techniques. Because Athena’s expert declaration made allegations inconsistent with the ’820 patent, the district 

court was not obliged to accept them as true. For these

reasons, the district court did not err in dismissing 

Athena’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). 

C. 

Claim 6 recites a method for detecting MuSK autoantibodies different from claims 7–9. While claims 7–9 recite 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 21

a radioimmunoassay, claim 6 recites an ELISA method. 

Like radioimmunoassays, the specification describes 

ELISA as an “immunological assay technique[] known per 

se in the art.” ’820 patent col. 3 ll. 32–36. The main technical difference pertinent to this appeal between an ELISA 

and a radioimmunoassay is that in an ELISA, the secondary antibody rather than the antigen is labeled. 

Athena argues that since the district court did not specifically analyze claim 6, which involves a different technology, and implicitly treated claims 7–9 as representative, 

we should remand at least with respect to claim 6. Mayo 

responds that the district court properly grouped claim 6 

with claims 7–9 because Athena grouped them together, 

and that Athena waived any separate arguments regarding claim 6 by not specifically addressing that claim in its 

briefing. 

During the district court proceedings, Athena represented that it would not assert claims 1–5 and 10–12, and 

Mayo then moved to dismiss Athena’s complaint, specifically addressing claims 6–9. In its response, Athena did 

not make any particularized arguments regarding claim 6, 

and, in an earlier response, indicated that the same arguments pertaining to claims 7–9 were also applicable to 

claim 6. See J.A. 180 (“While the claim does not require 

radioactive MuSK or complexes, many other arguments relating to claims 7-9 apply to claim 6.”). The district court 

did not address claim 6 in its order beyond listing it among 

the other claims. Decision, 275 F. Supp. 3d at 309–10.

Given this history, we agree with Mayo that Athena 

waived its arguments specific to claim 6 by not making 

them before the district court. We apply regional circuit 

law to the issue of waiver, as it is not unique to patent law. 

Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 

1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (en 

banc in relevant part)). In the First Circuit, an argument 
22 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

may be deemed waived that was not presented to the district court. Butler v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 748 F.3d 

28, 36 (1st Cir. 2014). Although Athena recognized that 

claim 6 was at issue, it concededly did not present any specific arguments concerning the eligibility of claim 6. Appellant’s Br. 15. It was not incumbent on the district court 

to address arguments that Athena did not make. We thus 

find no error in the district court considering claims 7–9 as 

representative of claim 6. Even if we had reached the issue, we would hold claim 6 ineligible. The specification describes ELISA as an “immunological assay technique[]

known per se in the art.” ’820 patent col. 3 ll. 32–36. Claim 

6 merely recites the application of this standard technique 

to observe a natural law. This does not provide an inventive concept under step two. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Athena’s remaining arguments 

but find them unpersuasive. Because claims 6–9 of the ’820 

patent recite only a natural law together with conventional 

steps to detect that law, they are ineligible under § 101. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the 

district court.

AFFIRMED 
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD 

UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCKGESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER 

WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA 

MAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2017-2508

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Massachusetts in No. 1:15-cv-40075-IT, Judge 

Indira Talwani.

______________________

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

Until discovery of the diagnostic method described in 

U.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 (“the ’820 patent”), some 20% of 

patients suffering from the neurological disorder Myasthenia Gravis were not capable of being diagnosed. My colleagues rule that this new diagnostic method is not patenteligible, although new and unobvious. However, “[t]his 

new and improved technique, for producing a tangible and 

useful result, falls squarely outside those categories of inventions that are ‘directed to’ patent-ineligible concepts.” 

Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 
2 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court again departs from the 

cautious restraints in the Supreme Court’s Mayo/Alice application of laws of nature and abstract ideas.

This court’s decisions on the patent-ineligibility of diagnostic methods are not consistent, and my colleagues today enlarge the inconsistencies and exacerbate the judgemade disincentives to development of new diagnostic methods, with no public benefit. I respectfully dissent.

The claims are for a multi-step method of diagnosis, not a law of nature

The ’820 inventors did not patent their scientific discovery of MuSK autoantibodies. Rather, they applied this 

discovery to create a new method of diagnosis, for a previously undiagnosable neurological condition. The district 

court summarized this new diagnostic method as follows:

For the 20% of Myasthenia Gravis patients who do 

not have the AChR [acetylcholine receptor] autoantibodies, the ’820 patent inventors discovered that 

they had IgG [immunoglobulin G] antibodies that 

attack the N-terminal domains of muscle specific 

tyrosine kinase (“MuSK”), a receptor that is located 

on the surface of neuromuscular junctions. . . . [A] 

radioactive label is attached to MuSK (or a fragment thereof) and is then introduced to a sample of 

bodily fluid. . . . [T]he MuSK autoantibodies, if present, attach to the labeled fragment . . . [and] is immunoprecipitated, the presence of the radioactive 

label on any antibody indicates that the person is 

suffering from Myasthenia Gravis.
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 3

Dist. Ct. Order, at 307–081 (citing ’820 patent, col. 1, ll. 55–

61). The claims recite the method, including preparation 

of the new radioactive entities and their chemical reactions 

to detect autoantibodies to the protein muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK). At issue are patent claims 7–9, 

shown with claim 1 (not in suit) from which they depend:

1. A method for diagnosing neurotransmission or 

developmental disorders related to muscle specific 

tyrosine kinase (MuSK) in a mammal comprising 

the step of detecting in a bodily fluid of said mammal autoantibodies to an epitope of muscle specific 

tyrosine kinase (MuSK).

7. A method according to claim 1, comprising 

 contacting MuSK or an epitope or antigenic determinant thereof having a suitable label thereon, 

with said bodily fluid,

 immunoprecipitating any antibody/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope or antigenic determinant complex from said bodily fluid and

 monitoring for said label on any of said antibody/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope or 

antigen determinant complex,

 wherein the presence of said label is indicative of 

said mammal is suffering from said neurotransmission or developmental disorder related to muscle 

specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK).

8. A method according to claim 7 wherein said label 

is a radioactive label.

 

1 Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative 

Servs., LLC, 275 F. Supp. 3d 306 (D. Mass. 2017) (“Dist. Ct. 

Order”).
4 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

9. A method according to claim 8 wherein said label 

is 125I [iodine isotope 125].

The reaction between the antibody and the MuSK protein 

was not previously known, nor was it known to form a labeled MuSK or its epitope, nor to form the antibody/MuSK 

complex, immunoprecipitate the complex, and monitor for

radioactivity, thereby diagnosing these previously undiagnosable neurotransmission disorders.

Claims 7–9 require specific steps by which the diagnostic method is performed. The panel majority ignores these 

steps, and instead holds that “claims 7–9 are directed to a 

natural law because the claimed advance was only in the 

discovery of a natural law, and that the additional recited 

steps only apply conventional techniques to detect that natural law.” Maj. Op. at 12. This analysis of patent-eligibility is incorrect, for the claim is for a multi-step method of 

diagnosing neurotransmission disorders related to muscle 

specific tyrosine kinase, by detecting autoantibodies using 

a series of chemical and biological steps as set forth in the 

claims. Eligibility is determined for the claim considered 

as a whole, including all its elements and limitations. 

Claim limitations cannot be discarded when determining 

eligibility under Section 101, as explained in Diamond v. 

Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981):

In determining the eligibility of respondents’ 

claimed process for patent protection under § 101, 

their claims must be considered as a whole. It is 

inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new 

elements and then to ignore the presence of the old 

elements in the analysis.

Id. at 188; see Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978)

(“[A] patent claim must be considered as a whole.”); see also

Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 

336, 344 (1961) (“[I]f anything is settled in the patent law, 

it is that the combination patent covers only the totality of 

the elements in the claim and that no element, separately 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 5

viewed, is within the grant.”); Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 320 U.S. 680, 684 (1944) (“[A]

patent on a combination is a patent on the assembled or 

functioning whole, not on the separate parts.”).

The requirement that a claim is considered as a whole 

was not changed by the Mayo/Alice protocol of searching

for an inventive concept within a claim that is directed to a 

law of nature or an abstract idea. It is incorrect to excise 

from the claims any steps that are performed by conventional procedures. This is misconstruction of claims, and 

misapplication of Section 101. As reiterated in Bilski v. 

Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010): 

Section 101 is a dynamic provision designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions. A categorical rule denying patent protection for 

inventions in areas not contemplated by Congress

. . . would frustrate the purposes of the patent law.

Id. at 605 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 

Applied to the ’820 patent, the claimed method is a new 

method of diagnosing Myasthenia Gravis. After eliminating the “conventional” procedures, my colleagues rule that 

this new method is a “law of nature.” However, these inventors are not claiming the scientific fact of a newly described autoantibody; they are claiming a new multi-step 

diagnostic method. This is not a law of nature, but a manmade reaction sequence employing new components in a 

new combination to perform a new diagnostic procedure. 

Section 101 describes patent-eligible subject 

matter in broad and general terms 

Section 101 does not exclude new methods of diagnosis 

of human ailments.

35 U.S.C. § 101 Inventions Patentable

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful 

process, machine, manufacture, or composition of 
6 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

matter, or any new and useful improvement 

thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the 

conditions and requirements of this title.

Section 101 recites the subject matter of patent law, as distinguished from copyright law, which is also authorized by

Article I, Section 8. This framework is “cast in broad 

terms,” as the Court observed in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 

447 U.S. 303 (1980):

The subject-matter provisions of the patent law 

have been cast in broad terms to fulfill the constitutional and statutory goal of promoting “the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” with all that 

means for the social and economic benefits envisioned by Jefferson. Broad general language is not 

necessarily ambiguous when congressional objectives require broad terms.

Id. at 315.

The Court has often discussed the exceptions to patent 

eligibility, stating that: “Phenomena of nature, though just 

discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 

U.S. 63, 67 (1972). “Thus, a new mineral discovered in the 

earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable 

subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented 

the law of gravity. Such discoveries are ‘manifestations of 

. . . nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to 

none’.” Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309 (quoting Funk Bros. 

Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)). 

In Funk Brothers the Court explained:

The qualities of these bacteria, like the heat of the 

sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part 

of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are 

manifestations of laws of nature, free to all men 
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 7

and reserved exclusively to none. He who discovers 

a hitherto unknown phenomenon of nature has no 

claim to a monopoly of it which the law recognizes. 

If there is to be invention from such a discovery, it 

must come from the application of the law of nature 

to a new and useful end.

Id. at 130.

The Court early drew the distinction between scientific 

knowledge and its technological application. An oft-cited 

example is the case of O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (15 

How.) (1854), where the Court declined patent-eligibility of

Morse’s claim 8 to “electro-magnetism, however developed 

for marking or printing intelligible characters, signs, or letters, at any distances,” id. at 112–13, but sustained Morse’s 

claims to “us[ing] [] the motive power of magnetism . . . as 

means of operating or giving motion to machinery, which 

may be used to imprint signals . . . for the purpose of telegraphic communication at any distances.” Id. at 85; see id.

at 112. The Court criticized the breadth of Morse’s claim

8, and stated:

In fine he claims an exclusive right to use a manner 

and process which he has not described and indeed 

had not invented, and therefore could not describe 

when he obtained his patent.

Id. at 113; see Adam Mossoff, O’Reilly v. Morse, George Mason Law & Econ. Research Paper No. 14-22 (Aug. 18, 2014), 

available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2448363. In Mackay 

Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 

86 (1939), the Court explained that: “While a scientific 

truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable invention, a novel and useful structure created with the 

aid of knowledge of scientific truth may be.” Id. at 94. 

These principles are the foundation of the truism that natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible. 
8 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

As science and its applications advanced, particularly 

in the new fields of digital electronics and biotechnology, 

the jurisprudence kept pace. In Chakrabarty the Court 

considered a man-made bacterium, and held that eligibility

under Section 101 applies to “anything under the sun that 

is made by man.” 447 U.S. at 309. 

The most recent Court updates are Mayo Collaborative 

Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 

(2012) (biotechnology), and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS 

Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) (digital electronics). The 

Court reviewed Section 101 eligibility in these new fields, 

building on the vast body of jurisprudence since the first 

patent was analyzed by Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of 

State in 1790. See generally Ten Law Professors Br.;2 Five 

Life Sciences Patent Practitioners Br.3 These amici curiae 

explain the policy concern for preemption of scientific principles, and apply this concern to the case at bar, advising 

that the scientific information of the new autoantibody and 

its protein reactivity is available to all, and that the ’820 

patent claims 7–9 “did not preempt any ‘law of nature’ upon 

which the claimed diagnostic method relied.” Five Life Sciences Patent Practitioners Br. at 1. 

In Alice, the Court summarized the procedural framework for eligibility for patenting:

First, we determine whether the claims at issue are 

directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. 

132 S. Ct., at 1296–1297. If so, we then ask, 

“[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” 132 

 

2 Amici Curiae Ten Law Professors, ECF No. 54 

(Nov. 13, 2017) (“Ten Law Professors Br.”).

3 Amici Curiae Five Life Sciences Patent Practitioners, ECF No. 52 (Nov. 13, 2017) (“Five Life Sciences Patent 

Practitioners Br.”).
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 9

S. Ct., at 1297. To answer that question, we consider the elements of each claim both individually 

and “as an ordered combination” to determine 

whether the additional elements “transform the 

nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. 132 S. Ct., at 1298, 1297.

Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo). 

This analysis comports with precedent, and the Court 

reiterated its caution that “too broad an interpretation of 

this exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law. 

For all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest 

upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71; see Alice, 573 U.S. at

217 (“At the same time, we tread carefully in construing 

this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent 

law.”). We have echoed this concern, stating in Rapid Litigation Management, 827 F.3d at 1050, “[a]t step one, 

therefore, it is not enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the claim; we must determine 

whether that patent-ineligible concept is what the claim is 

‘directed to,’” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 217).

The panel majority departs from this guidance, for the 

claimed diagnostic method as a whole satisfies step one. 

The majority does not distinguish between the question of 

whether the claimed method as a whole is eligible, and the 

question of whether the separate steps use conventional

procedures. Instead, my colleagues hold that since the separate procedures are conventional, it is irrelevant that the 

method as a whole is a new method. The majority misconstrues the claims, in holding that claims 7–9 are directed

to the “concept” of “the correlation between the presence of 

naturally-occurring MuSK autoantibodies in bodily fluid 

and MuSK-related neurological diseases like MG.” Maj. 

Op. at 9–10. The claimed method determines whether this 

correlation is present, for diagnostic purposes, but the concept itself is not claimed. 
10 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

It is incorrect to separate the claim steps into whether 

a step is performed by conventional techniques, and then 

to remove those steps from the claims and their “conjunction with all of the other steps” for the purpose of Section 

101 analysis. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187. All of the claim steps 

must be considered in the claimed combination. “It is inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements

and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the 

analysis.” Id. at 188. The Court explained that a new process may be a combination of known steps:

This is particularly true in a process claim because 

a new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even though all the constituents of the 

combination were well known and in common use 

before the combination was made.

Id. The Court stated that:

The “novelty” of any element or steps in a process, 

or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in 

determining whether the subject matter of a claim 

falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. 

Id. at 188–89. The Court again recognized this principle in 

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), stating 

that: 

[I]nventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon 

building blocks long since uncovered, and claimed 

discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations 

of what, in some sense, is already known.

Id. at 418–19. This court applied this principle in McRO, 

Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 

1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted)

and cautioned that “courts must be careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims by looking at them generally and 

failing to account for the specific requirements of the 

claims”—a caution disregarded today.
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 11

The panel majority contravenes the requirements of 

precedent, now holding that all of the steps of claims 7–9—

that is, radioactive labelling, complexing, precipitating, 

and monitoring—are removed from consideration in the 

Section 101 analysis because they use conventional procedures; the majority holds that “[t]he ’820 patent thus describes the claimed invention principally as a discovery of 

a natural law, not as an improvement in the underlying 

immunoassay technology.” Maj. Op. at 12. However, that 

is not the claimed invention. In Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71, the 

Court cautioned that “too broad an interpretation of this 

exclusionary principle could eviscerate patent law. For all 

inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or 

apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract 

ideas.”

Applying the Mayo/Alice protocol of two-step claim 

analysis, claims 7–9 of the ’820 patent are patent-eligible 

under Step 1, for this method of diagnosing Myasthenia 

Gravis is not a law of nature, but a man-made chemicalbiomedical procedure. Claims 7–9 recite a combination of 

technologic steps, all of which are limitations to the claims

and cannot be disregarded whether for patentability or patent-eligibility or infringement. The court today violates 

this rule, in holding that because “the . . . individual steps 

. . . [of] ‘[i]odination and immunoprecipitation are standard 

techniques in the art,’” Maj. Op. at 6, these steps do not 

count under Section 101. Id. at 12–13.

Section 101 does not turn on whether any claim steps 

are “standard techniques.” The appropriate analysis of the 

role of conventional process steps in claims to a new

method is under Sections 102 and 103, not Section 101.

The amici curiae raise strong concerns for the 

consequences for biomedical diagnostics 

This court’s decisions have not been consistent. Today’s decision is not consistent with, for example, Rapid 

Litigation Management, 827 F.3d at 1048, where the court 
12 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

held that although the general type of cell was known, and 

the manipulation of these specific cells was conducted in a 

conventional manner, the overall method was eligible under Section 101. 

Amici curiae point out that the public interest is poorly

served by adding disincentive to the development of new 

diagnostic methods. This is a severe criticism; and when 

presented by the entire industry, and stressed by thoughtful scholars, it warrants judicial attention.

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization4 pleads for 

consistency in judge-made law, citing the

unabated uncertainty about the patent-eligibility 

of many biotechnological inventions, with diagnostic and prognostic methods being particularly affected. The unstable state of patent-eligibility 

jurisprudence affects modern biotechnologies ranging from biomarker-assisted methods of drug treatment to companion diagnostic tests, fermentation 

products, industrial enzyme technology, and 

marker-assisted methods of plant breeding.

BIO Br. at 1. International concerns are presented by The

Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys,5 an organization 

of the United Kingdom, stating that this decision conflicts 

with the eligibility of diagnostic methods under the Patent 

Cooperation Treaty and the European Patent Convention, 

and is inconsistent with the obligations of the United 

States under Article 27 and Note 5 of the Agreement on 

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 

 

4 Amicus Curiae Biotechnology Innovation Organization, ECF No. 53 (Nov. 13, 2017) (“BIO Br.”).

5 Amicus Curiae The Chartered Institute of Patent 

Attorneys, ECF No. 51 (Nov. 13, 2017) (“CIPA Br.”).
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 13

(TRIPS) administered by the World Trade Organization. 

CIPA Br. at 2.

Amici curiae Five Life Sciences Patent Practitioners 

point out that “The Supreme Court has recognized that patent ineligibility determinations (by courts or the Patent 

Office) have the potential to inhibit innovation,” Five Life 

Sciences Patent Practitioners Br. at 6 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 605 (2010)). They state concerns of the 

inventing/investing communities with respect to the future 

of diagnostics, because “[medical] diagnostic methods . . . 

are so tightly bound to underlying natural laws and phenomen[a], they are especially susceptible to undue expansion of the eligibility standards implemented to protect the 

judicial exceptions as they have been explicated by the Supreme Court.” Id. at 6–7.

Amici curiae Ten Law Professors direct us to the cost 

to develop and commercialize a new diagnostic, reported as 

$50-100 million, see Ten Law Professors Br. at 18–19 (citing Diaceutics Group, Mystery Solved! What is the Cost to 

Develop and Launch a Diagnostic? (2013), available at

https://www.diaceutics.com/?expert-insight=mysterysolved-what-is-the-cost-to-develop-and-launch-a-diagnostic).

Undoubtedly there are a variety of interests in diagnostic procedures, and we take note that amicus curiae ARUP

Laboratories6 states that diagnostic tests should not be patentable at all. See generally ARUP Br. However, for procedures that require extensive development and federal 

approval, unpredictability of patent support is a 

 

6 Amicus Curiae ARUP Laboratories, ECF No. 76 

(Feb. 6, 2018) (“ARUP Br.”). 
14 ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES

disincentive to development of new diagnostic methods.7 

The loser is the afflicted public, for diagnostic methods that 

are not developed benefit no one.8

The judicial obligation is to provide stable, consistent 

application of statute and precedent, to implement the legislative purpose. With all respect to my colleagues on this 

panel, they misapply precedent and misinterpret the statute, adding discrepancies and disincentives to this important area of biomedicine. Claims 7–9 meet the Section 

101 eligibility rules, for the claims are to a new and useful 

method. 

Applying the statute correctly, diagnostic claims 

should be evaluated for novelty and unobviousness, specificity and enablement. A method that meets these statutory criteria is within the system of patents, whether the 

diagnosed event occurs in the human body or in an 

 

7 This court has invalidated patents on new diagnostic methods in Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 

F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Cleveland Clinic Found. 

v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. 

Cir. 2017); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 

1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015); In re 

BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent 

Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

8 It is estimated that 66% of all medical treatment 

decisions are based on the results of in vitro diagnostic testing. Ulrich-Peter Rohr, et al., The Value of In Vitro 

Diagnostic Testing in Medical Practice: A Status Report, 11

PLoS One 1, 2, 11, 13 (2016), 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4778800/pdf/pone.0149856.pdf. See Ten Law 

Professors Br. at 18.
ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS v. MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES 15

extraneous device. From my colleagues’ contrary conclusion, I respectfully dissent.